Sycopata

Ty for some kind of responce, but this is taking so long. Lets expect no more long. We need also to decide. And now we have no information to decide, we have maybe to organize a wipe, refunding corps etc...? Or return to the actual frozen projects?
This actual situation with no idea on the near future, have to end.

Noveans,
 
First, we wish to thank everyone for all of your feedback and questions about the topic Shedding Light on a Novaquark Internal Discussion.
 
We wanted to let everyone know that the internal discussions are still in process and currently ongoing with all of the pros and cons mentioned in the thread above. This is a big decision and we want to do what is right for Dual Universe, as well as our current and future players.
 
We have been reading all of your feedback and questions, and they have been extremely useful in our internal discussions. As soon as a decision is made, we will pass that information to you. We appreciate your patience and support as we continue to explore and investigate the best possibilities for Dual Universe. Thank you!
 
In addition, we will soon have information about the Kickstarter Rewards, as well as DACs to share, so please keep watch for that!
 
 

 
New Community Podcast 
 
We know that you have many questions about many Dual Universe topics on your mind. Next week, we will be starting a new podcast where we will be bringing your questions to our Novaquark team for answers. 
 
How does it work? Good question! 
 
If you have a question about Dual Universe (game mechanics, lua, FTUE - these are just some examples of topics to ask about), then head over to our Community Questions Submission Form and enter your question(s) there. Once submitted, just listen to the upcoming podcasts and your question may be included there. We look forward to hearing from you!
 

While doing my ore collection today I noticed that loading of textures is very noticibly and considerabley slower (and frequently just missed with black or blurred patches all oevr the place when flying) than previously. Overall, the server response feel more sluggish than before as well.
 
A lot of artefacts as well and I see water spawning in (and disappearing when I get closer) where it never was before when flying a known route
 
Anyone else notice this ?

Hello there,
 
First off, thanks for the feedback. 
 
So there's a couple of different things to touch on here:
 
The internal balance of shields sizes CCS/honeycomb health vs Shield Health per mass Venting
I’ll try to address in that order but they will mesh a little since they have some obvious links.
 
First of all smaller shield sizes are at an advantage in regards to HP/mass. So something to keep in mind is that as you go up in size, as it pertains only to shields, you are losing out on the HP/mass ratio (in simpler terms, each HP weighs more on larger shields). This is an inbuilt advantage smaller sizes simply have.
However, the main and primary reason we have different shield sizes at all, is to support constructs of varying sizes and mass. This is the key center-point around which everything else mostly revolves.
 
If you are intending to make a larger, heavier construct, that is going to trend towards or go past the max mass, then the large shield becomes the obvious choice. However, should you want to make something smaller, more agile, and quicker, you may start to use shields of smaller sizes. We already see people experimenting with constructs of smaller sizes using S and M shields to take advantage of the speed, this is a great direction, as long as the pendulum does not swing too far in the favor of smaller constructs.
Now, if the weight penalties do not sufficiently affect the design of the ship, and large shields are still too mass effective even on smaller designs. That's a subject we will continue to address. We do not want to see S designs using exclusively L shields because the additional mass from larger shields doesn't matter in regards to acceleration, max speed, and rotation speed.
 
To answer your question clearly, there is no direct goal for an M shield and an equivalent 95t of voxel to be worse, equal, or better than an L shield and I’ll try to explain why as we go. You should take the shield of the size that makes sense for the design of your ship. If you have the mass available, or are willing to “spend” the mass to have a larger shield, then go for it.
 
Don't want to get into the venting subject too quickly, but using an M with a bunch of honeycomb could allow you to vent once or twice during a battle, especially on a lighter design that can also evade some damage. Maybe the balancing on that isn't perfect, but it should be an option.
At the end of the day the inbuilt advantage of an M shield over an L shield is that it's significantly lighter. You say it's always worth going to an L shield because M+HC is worse in HP, maybe this is the case (more on that later) but the point is that for that 95t you could probably build out a good part of a fully equipped construct, allowing you to have a quicker, more agile construct with a superior max speed, that's the upside.
 
Talking concretely in regards to the mass, if I made a competitive light-ish design with an M shield around 250t ( I don't have one on hand, this is probably on the lighter side after the changes). I'm going about 38-39k km/h max speed, just switching from an M shield to an L shield, I drop down to about 35k km/h. Now adding an extra 95t to a 250t design is probably going to seriously hurt my acceleration as well, so now I'm probably at least looking at redoing my engine setup, which likely adds some more mass as well.
So now the question is more along the lines of, do I prefer an extra 5mill HP from the L shield, or about 5000-6000km/h extra max speed and some extra rotation speed. Well that's a question I’d love feedback on, maybe the max speed and rotation speed isn't enough, I could see that.
 
Secondly there could be an advantage to being able to “modulate” your weight while still gaining some tankiness from honeycomb. An M shield with some honeycomb unlocks some venting on that design, while retaining some/most of the mobility.
 
In regards to your reasoning about M vs L shields. Roughly you're going from “it only makes sense to use the largest shield mass wise, so I can never vent on xs-m because I'm not going to be using voxels on anything smaller than the L”.
 
Well honestly, I don't particularly agree with that, at least not in theory. The interest of voxels is that it's scalable, and you can choose how much voxel you think you need. If you're going to use an M shield because that makes sense for your design mass wise, you don't “have” to use 95t of honeycomb. You can use 30t of a good hc over your ship. That's already going to give you a chunk of armor to help you get some venting going, and probably not endanger your cross-section too much. If that honeycomb buys you enough time for 2 vents (probably optimistic), then you’ve essentially caught up on an L shield in raw shield HP and you’re operating at more than half the mass. 
Now maybe that's not viable, maybe the honeycomb itself is too weak and even reasonable quantities of honeycomb get blown apart too quickly, that's possible and that's something we can look at. Perhaps at that point the subject is more that voxels are generally weak.
 
It's also important to note that in regards to your “real HP”, some amount of the incoming hits are also going to be hitting elements, elements that can be repaired which can give you more tankiness down the road. That means that when comparing raw HP to CCS, you have to take into account that CCS is counting every hit no matter where it's going, as opposed to your raw voxel HP which will, in effect, have additional health from elements.
 

For point 2, there's a couple things to say here. Shields are not inherently in competition with honeycomb, as mentioned we don't want them to be magnitudes apart in terms of HP because it wouldn't make sense, but fundamentally they are supposed to be complimentary.
 
Now in regards to your chart and conclusions. You didn't quite explain what “mean raw HP” is but I can guess it's the actual HP value of the deployed m3 HC multiplied by the average resistance, or at least I get close enough to your numbers using that.

Internally, in our tests using real ships CCS almost always goes first as opposed to the direct destruction of the core, I’d say in general this is situational depending on the design of the ship. In my experience, when constructs actually have a good amount of voxels, it's very difficult to dig your way to the core, and between the HC and the elements and the (occasional, hopefully fewer and fewer) lost shot, I believe that most of the time, you can count on your CCS HP being your “real” HP bar.  If that's not the case, especially on ships that have a good amount of HC, I’d love to see/hear more about it, since that would be contrary to what we’ve tested. Perhaps certain voxels are outliers.
 
My gut feeling is that in the “nano-age” during which CCS was introduced and voxels were rebalanced, people haven't been using voxels a ton in pvp. The goal is for that to change and honestly, if people start using voxels in some quantity, that's already good progress. If it does come out that cheaper voxels, or certain cheap voxels are always way better than more expensive voxels, I'll be more than happy to take a look at that (and to be honest, I’ve started already since I had to look at a bunch of stuff for this).
Lastly on this, you’ve defined that plastic is the best material on the basis of it having the most “mean HP” for the mass. That may be the case, but seeing how much effort players have put into reducing cross-section at almost any cost, I don't think 6700 m3 of plastic is always going to be the best solution.
 

For the last point in regards to venting, I feel like I’ve partly answered the question already but I’ll answer more broadly. Venting isn't something that will or needs to be used. It's a tool at your disposal and it's up to you to figure out how and when you're going to use it depending on the situation and the design of your ship. In contrast it's our job to make sure that those avenues can exist in the game.
 
In view of that, lighter ships now can try to disengage using their speed and try to get away and disengage to vent and come back, some ships may have honeycomb to tank on the CCS, some ships may not be able to reliably vent. If you design your ship in such a way that it cannot vent, then that's on you. However, if it is the case that there are NO competitive designs that allow you to vent at all, I agree that's a problem we need to change.
 
It will come down to the design of your ship, and it's possible that venting will be more usable in certain situations, and certain circumstances than others. For example, I don't expect smaller and lighter ships to have enough CCS/voxels to tank more than a couple hits (let alone all the elements that will die on a compact design) so if they can't escape the firepower using their speed/agility, they are likely dead. But who knows, it might be worth it now to dedicate some amount of HC on ships, specifically to be able to tank a handful of shots to get some shield HP back, even if you don't manage a full cycle off.
 
Essentially from my perspective, if you go no honeycomb, you are accepting that venting is going to be a tougher proposal than if you had dedicated some mass to HC protection, there's a tradeoff there. Now maybe that tradeoff isn't balanced, and there's one obvious better choice than the other, in that case we will take a look (that was sort of what was happening up to 0.29, there wasn't much point to using HC, but I think between the shield mass and health changes,  and the speed changes, HC could have merit again in at least some designs, but maybe it's not enough).
 
For an example on a relatively light design, even just 100m3 of that grade 5 titanium is going to give you around 1.2milll CCS health for 4-5~ extra tonnes. Is that enough to tank serious damage for a while? No, probably not. Is it enough to absorb a couple hits as you try to pull out of range, get your transversal speed up and start venting some HP back, probably yes. The downside is your cross-section may suffer and you'll lose some speed (honestly the speed loss won't be much, even at the most severe parts of the speed curve). Is it worth it? I’d say so yeah, in some designs and some situations, especially now that heavy L ships can’t easily rotate to keep up with smaller constructs, having a slightly larger cross-section probably isn't such a big deal in certain scenarios now.
 
To be fair in regards to that point, I agree that on lighter and more compact constructs, the damage dealt to elements will sometimes be what ends up killing you rather than CCS, or even the core being killed. If you take a nasty hit that blows up half your elements, you are essentially dead. My question is are you able to use some HC, to reduce the chances of a good hit taking you out of the fight entirely.
 
I did a quick test, put up 50m3 of grade 5 titanium and blasted it with a fully talented laser L. It took 3 shots to get through and kill the core I had placed  just behind the material. To be honest though, based on my hit chance on a totally immobile target with zero cone or range issue, I would actually expect an actual S design to take almost 0 damage from L weapons. The shield and the CCS at that point is more of an insurance policy for the occasional hit, or to fight off other smaller constructs.
 
There's also something to be said about balancing cross-section vs compactness. Not having all your elements in the same spot, even on smaller designs, means a single shot has less chance to obliterate half your elements.
 

Anyway, I'm just spitballing on a lot of things, I certainly don't have all the answers, and likely there's some things I’ve missed, or some things I've overestimated the importance of or underestimated the importance of.
 
 
Now to address your “problems to be solved” directly as a conclusion of sorts.
 
   Point 1: In regards to this point, if people start using any honeycomb at all it’ll be a good direction. Once we get to the point where we’re saying “we’re using HC and these honeycombs are all clearly better than these honeycomb”, we will be in a good place to start addressing HC internal balancing. The second thing is I do currently believe that especially on larger ships, CCS is a better representation of health than raw HP, and this is likely the opposite on smaller ships.
 
   Point 2: I‘m not totally set on this. Unplayable seems like a strong word here. I think lighter, smaller constructs have more opportunities now to disengage from fights in order to vent, or potentially exploit larger ships' slow rotation to stay out of the cone of the guns. Additionally, in my mind, some honeycomb can be a valuable addition to smaller designs, to give yourself some room to vent. However, If this isn't enough, we could explore more powerful and quicker vents for smaller shields, that's certainly a possibility.
 
   Point 3: Maybe, I’ve gotten some info by looking into it again today, and it's possible some changes can come down the line on this. In the past we’ve had the opposite issues, so it's possible we went too far.
 

I know this is a big blob, I hope my numbers were right, my brain is a little hazy, and hopefully I’ve answered most of your questions and made this a little clearer for you guys.
 
 
Thanks.
 

EXTRACTION
 -The extractors have to consume energy cells
 -The extractors must have wear due to use and be replaced by new extractors after a period of use
-The extractors must be able to support preventive maintenance that consumes parts, but lengthens their time of use.
-Resources never have to be bought by bots
 
INDUSTRY
 -Industry has to consume energy cells
-The machines must have wear and tear and be replaced by new machines after a period of use
 -The machines must be able to accept preventive maintenance that consumes parts, but lengthens their time of use.
-The bots would never have to buy any elaborate product
 
ENGINEERING
-The mechanical parts of a ship must have wear and tear and be replaced by new mechanical parts after a period of use
-The mechanical parts of a ship must be able to accept preventive maintenance that consumes parts, but lengthens their time of use.
-The hull of the ship has to suffer general wear and tear, which can be repaired by scrap
 
RECYCLING
-All the elements of the game must be able to be recycled by means of a recycling machine, returning part of the resources required for its manufacture depending on the state of the element, a worn element would have to offer fewer resources than an unused element.

My 2c:
 
I do not want a wipe, cause I have built a lot of stuff that I will likely not be bothered to rebuild. HOWEVER, there needs to be a wipe for the longevity of the game. Basically there isn't a lot to do anymore in game because the universe fully matured very quickly.
 
So, with that said, I believe some things need to happen before a wipe which is partly linked to why they want to wipe.

Schematics - In their current form are bad. They're just an artificial block on stuff, however I think they should be incorporated in a way that will enhance the game. So my idea:
 
1. T1 has no schematics, let everyone get that
2. Higher tiers of stuff needs some kind of gate, whether that's schematics or whatever, I don't know, but it needs something so that the universe has to progress over time
3. That progression of the universe should involve the whole player base, not necessarily working together, but in natural symbiotic ways.
 
For instance:
make it so that people have to build/research schematics, so there will be players who specialise in this and sell schematics Make the production/research of those schematics take some kind of alien tech or something that explorers need to go off and collect Then you get a nice loop. Ship builders make ships that explorers use to go off and find alien tech that they provide to researchers who provide better schematics that ship builders then buy to make better ships for the explorers to go off and get better tech etc etc etc And IMO this should be a long process. The higher tiers of tech should take months to reach so that the universe has a natural curve and maturity to it and the overall player base has some reasons to do things other than 'Make money for... reasons'.
 
You can then feed other systems into this like combat for stealing tech, monopolising resources for better stuff, whatever.
 
So yeh, do a wipe, but get the game at a point where it has a proper loop that makes the universe feel worthwhile first, otherwise the same thing will just happen again (especially if you just remove schematics). Solo players will be able to build everything after a month and then... what's the point?

The discussion of a wipe has obviously caused mixed reactions among the DU community. I can't read the minds of devs, but I can assume that the teams at NQ wanted to get your thoughts/opinions on taking such a measure, and if I'm honest, I appreciate the fact that it was mentioned ahead of launch - additionally, NQ announced that they are reading/considering all of our questions and concerns... and I believe they are.
 
For many of us, a lot of time has been put into making DU creations and content. NQ understands this, period. But let's not also forget the countless hours spent by the dev team making this opportunity possible. Sure, there are some speedbumps (and possibly setbacks) along the way, and that is to be expected in an alpha or beta product. As a software developer myself, I can certainly relate to the difficulty of making decisions/changes that ultimately benefit the users of it's product in the long run, although it is not always without the risk of upsetting some of its users (in Game development even more so). Game devs are real people too - and often work many hours (unpaid overtime included) with little to no praise for all of their dedication.
 
Bugs:
Bugs are always going to be commonplace in software projects - it is next to impossible to avoid them. A small change in one place may cause something to break in another place. Oftentimes these small bugs get overlooked, especially with a smaller development team. But these bugs are no doubt on a list somewhere to be fixed (based on priority of other items). It's easy to identify something that has not been fixed, especially when it affects your gameplay, but it is not always easy to fix it in software in a timely fashion. I'm confident NQ will remedy this in the future.
 
Schematics/Skills:
I think early on, NQ wanted players to have the opportunity to explore all avenues of the game without restriction. DU being their baby, I bet it was exciting for them to see what we would do with it. Inevitably, there comes a time when it makes sense to revisit this after realizing how it impacted other experiences in the game. Were schematics the right answer? Maybe not, but it did give those who wanted to specialize in industry a clear path to do so, albeit at a great expense. I know this is a just a game, but some type of hierarchy will need to be established in order for all of us to find our niche. Maybe this could be done by implementing a top-tier profession or trade skill (i.e. Industry / Builder / Pilot / Weaponsmith / Mining, etc) where you can invest a set pool of points to become a master of your trade, but also have limited access to other professions/trades... enabling you to dabble in them, but not become a master of everything. If, at a later time, I get bored being a master of one trade, I could decide to abandon it altogether and invest my time in another profession/trade.
 
Wipe:
With regards to a wipe, I understand why it is on the table. As an alpha/beta player, I also expected this would be a possibility despite the fact that some at NQ may have said it wouldn't happen early on. Should it have been mentioned that there would not be a wipe after alpha? Probably not. Especially considering how complex a project can get as time goes on, new tools/features are added, etc. Scope creep is also another factor that devs have to work with... and I can only imagine this game has seen its fair share of those. Some may decide that they won't play after a full wipe... that  will be unfortunate for sure, especially considering this is a unique game with unique challenges - I'm looking forward to those challenges post wipe/launch. And, I'm certain that many of those who leave will be missed (some maybe not :P).
 
Value:
I can't remember the amount of money I paid for my account, but I definitely got way more enjoyment beyond the price I paid initially. Am I upset that I might lose all of the items I created if a full wipe happens? A little, but I'm also excited to start over with the vast amount of knowledge I've acquired up to this point. And, thank you NQ for all of your hard work on making a game that, for many, was long overdue in the industry.
 
In conclusion:
Apologies for the long response to this topic. Just wanted to voice my thoughts on what I'm sure is a difficult discussion for NQ. And, to say thank you to NQ for the opportunity to participate in the infancy of the game. I look forward to launch regardless of whether or not my initial creations follow me. I hope other players who consider leaving give it more thought before a final decision is made.
 

My points to defense the wipe: 
 
-It is a publicity claim, although many players believe that new players appreciate landing on a server full of life, the reality is that most prefer virgin worlds. 
 
-Sanitation of the database, all the servers as time goes by tend to work worse and worse, and even more so if they have suffered major infrastructure changes, due to big patches. 
 
-Restart interest in the game for old players, who, when they return to the game, after a pause, do not finish rejoining comfortably, hindering their previous progress 
 
-Relaunching the project, if the wipe is accompanied by a map change, graphic improvement, and a patch with a lot of content, can be an excuse to re-present the project as something new. 
 
-Eliminate the feeling of a dead world, despite the fact that there are many things in the game built, the vast majority are abandoned, flying over shells of large projects that do not advance, in reality it only shows that the game is in decline. 
 
-Eliminate from the game a lot of illegitimately gained wealth, despite the fact that we are convinced that it is easy for the smart to become rich again after the wipe, there are many rich who are not so because of their intellectual abilities, but because of their lack of scruples exploiting to the maximum game glitches. 
 
-Restart of many communities, there are many communities that a wipe can reactivate, since most projects decline when the players of a community disappear little by little, leaving many orphaned players who end up also stopping playing due to lack of partners, or joining other communities where they will never feel 100% part of the project, a wipe allows communities to restart and start again side by side to build projects in which you can feel involved. 
 
-Illusion to have everything to discover and to be back in a technological career, to start from scratch, it is always an emotional push, where you feel motivated to unlock both individual and collective achievements, a wipe offers a restart to those feelings. 
 
-Exponential increase in income for the company, although they are temporary, they can buy time so that the company can find a way to retain players, adding more and more content, instead of continuing in the dynamic of cutting content to adjust costs.

My points to defense the wipe: 
 
-It is a publicity claim, although many players believe that new players appreciate landing on a server full of life, the reality is that most prefer virgin worlds. 
 
-Sanitation of the database, all the servers as time goes by tend to work worse and worse, and even more so if they have suffered major infrastructure changes, due to big patches. 
 
-Restart interest in the game for old players, who, when they return to the game, after a pause, do not finish rejoining comfortably, hindering their previous progress 
 
-Relaunching the project, if the wipe is accompanied by a map change, graphic improvement, and a patch with a lot of content, can be an excuse to re-present the project as something new. 
 
-Eliminate the feeling of a dead world, despite the fact that there are many things in the game built, the vast majority are abandoned, flying over shells of large projects that do not advance, in reality it only shows that the game is in decline. 
 
-Eliminate from the game a lot of illegitimately gained wealth, despite the fact that we are convinced that it is easy for the smart to become rich again after the wipe, there are many rich who are not so because of their intellectual abilities, but because of their lack of scruples exploiting to the maximum game glitches. 
 
-Restart of many communities, there are many communities that a wipe can reactivate, since most projects decline when the players of a community disappear little by little, leaving many orphaned players who end up also stopping playing due to lack of partners, or joining other communities where they will never feel 100% part of the project, a wipe allows communities to restart and start again side by side to build projects in which you can feel involved. 
 
-Illusion to have everything to discover and to be back in a technological career, to start from scratch, it is always an emotional push, where you feel motivated to unlock both individual and collective achievements, a wipe offers a restart to those feelings. 
 
-Exponential increase in income for the company, although they are temporary, they can buy time so that the company can find a way to retain players, adding more and more content, instead of continuing in the dynamic of cutting content to adjust costs.

My points to defense the wipe: 
 
-It is a publicity claim, although many players believe that new players appreciate landing on a server full of life, the reality is that most prefer virgin worlds. 
 
-Sanitation of the database, all the servers as time goes by tend to work worse and worse, and even more so if they have suffered major infrastructure changes, due to big patches. 
 
-Restart interest in the game for old players, who, when they return to the game, after a pause, do not finish rejoining comfortably, hindering their previous progress 
 
-Relaunching the project, if the wipe is accompanied by a map change, graphic improvement, and a patch with a lot of content, can be an excuse to re-present the project as something new. 
 
-Eliminate the feeling of a dead world, despite the fact that there are many things in the game built, the vast majority are abandoned, flying over shells of large projects that do not advance, in reality it only shows that the game is in decline. 
 
-Eliminate from the game a lot of illegitimately gained wealth, despite the fact that we are convinced that it is easy for the smart to become rich again after the wipe, there are many rich who are not so because of their intellectual abilities, but because of their lack of scruples exploiting to the maximum game glitches. 
 
-Restart of many communities, there are many communities that a wipe can reactivate, since most projects decline when the players of a community disappear little by little, leaving many orphaned players who end up also stopping playing due to lack of partners, or joining other communities where they will never feel 100% part of the project, a wipe allows communities to restart and start again side by side to build projects in which you can feel involved. 
 
-Illusion to have everything to discover and to be back in a technological career, to start from scratch, it is always an emotional push, where you feel motivated to unlock both individual and collective achievements, a wipe offers a restart to those feelings. 
 
-Exponential increase in income for the company, although they are temporary, they can buy time so that the company can find a way to retain players, adding more and more content, instead of continuing in the dynamic of cutting content to adjust costs.

My points to defense the wipe: 
 
-It is a publicity claim, although many players believe that new players appreciate landing on a server full of life, the reality is that most prefer virgin worlds. 
 
-Sanitation of the database, all the servers as time goes by tend to work worse and worse, and even more so if they have suffered major infrastructure changes, due to big patches. 
 
-Restart interest in the game for old players, who, when they return to the game, after a pause, do not finish rejoining comfortably, hindering their previous progress 
 
-Relaunching the project, if the wipe is accompanied by a map change, graphic improvement, and a patch with a lot of content, can be an excuse to re-present the project as something new. 
 
-Eliminate the feeling of a dead world, despite the fact that there are many things in the game built, the vast majority are abandoned, flying over shells of large projects that do not advance, in reality it only shows that the game is in decline. 
 
-Eliminate from the game a lot of illegitimately gained wealth, despite the fact that we are convinced that it is easy for the smart to become rich again after the wipe, there are many rich who are not so because of their intellectual abilities, but because of their lack of scruples exploiting to the maximum game glitches. 
 
-Restart of many communities, there are many communities that a wipe can reactivate, since most projects decline when the players of a community disappear little by little, leaving many orphaned players who end up also stopping playing due to lack of partners, or joining other communities where they will never feel 100% part of the project, a wipe allows communities to restart and start again side by side to build projects in which you can feel involved. 
 
-Illusion to have everything to discover and to be back in a technological career, to start from scratch, it is always an emotional push, where you feel motivated to unlock both individual and collective achievements, a wipe offers a restart to those feelings. 
 
-Exponential increase in income for the company, although they are temporary, they can buy time so that the company can find a way to retain players, adding more and more content, instead of continuing in the dynamic of cutting content to adjust costs.

Original ideas, are not alwais good ideas , DU have unique mechanics never seen before, but alot times is better to copy existing ideas.
 
The video game industry has advanced following patterns that worked, and it is not by chance, let's say for example PvP games like Albion Online, or eve online, they are games that when you dead, part of the equipment or pieces of the ship are destroyed, it is not an arbitrary decision, it is simply a decision based on the need for wealth to disappear from the game, so that other people who do not participate in pvp can continue to produce wealth with continuous demand. 
 
Also in Albion Online and Eve Online. ,industries outside the safe zone have bonuses, which drive you to want to build and defend those unsafe zones.
 
Also both games, have pvp introductory mechanics in the safe zone like FW, militia, and wars, and pve content, to intruce people in fight mechanics.
 
Is Albion Online a Copy of eve online?
Not really, just both games evolved to the same point, risk vs reward, and wheel of creation and destruction.
 
What I have exposed are just a couple of examples of the mechanics that work in other games, and that turn out to be all very similar, because they are the ones that work, in the same way that all the wheels in are round, it is not always necessary to invent a new wheel form. 
 
Yo have the necessary tools to have a game like this, I have seen that you have the talent, but they lack the courage. Stop thinking about how things will affect your game, or the players feelings, and look at how things have gone for the brave, Albion online and eve online were brave games.

Certainly something I can see play a part and I expect we wil lstart seeing the signs of this soon enough as release approaches fast
 
 
And this is a big one.. The current database will prbably be messy at best and eespecially if NQ optimizes and redesigns the database structure, this may well hav ebenefits fo rthe game on the sort and longer term
 
 
This wil certainly be a thing, the number of players who left is far, far greeater than the number remaining. And also, I believe there is a good few who out of priciple will wait until "release". So the gain here will likely far outweigh the loss
 
 
This coul dbe a big one too form a PR  perspective, especially when it combines wit hte next one..
 
 
Yes, all these I believe to be very much valid reasons.
 
The beta has way too much "baggage" and many will have learnt much and have found they may have made incorrect choices in aa few ways. The wipe, when what I expect will be talent points returning to the pool and blueprints for your created constructs (not all owned, just what you created) both makes sense and really is unavoidable at this point

There is far more benefits than issues with such a wipe. The few that will actually leave the game are not really relevant from a business perspective.

The best point on 0.23 pach:

 
[IMPORTANT] Elements now have limited restoration attempts using scrap before being permanently broken and requiring a new element to be replaced with.
 
Most elements can be restored 3 times.
Item and fuel containers can be restored 5 times.
Core Units can no longer be restored using scrap at all.
 
It was such a good aspect, that our corporation created an internal market to be able to offer spare parts, each one of the members specialized in the production of a series of spare parts, and we created an area of stores with dispensers, after reversing this patch for the pressure of the players, that industry was no longer necessary because no one needed spare parts anymore, the stores stopped making sense and the market was dead. and let's be honest, the problem is not lag or bugs, the problem is that there is a part of players, who do not want to suffer any penalty for their mistakes, and who are only interested in seeing their wealth grow.
 
The tools are in the devs hands.
 

Original ideas, are not alwais good ideas , DU have unique mechanics never seen before, but alot times is better to copy existing ideas.
 
The video game industry has advanced following patterns that worked, and it is not by chance, let's say for example PvP games like Albion Online, or eve online, they are games that when you dead, part of the equipment or pieces of the ship are destroyed, it is not an arbitrary decision, it is simply a decision based on the need for wealth to disappear from the game, so that other people who do not participate in pvp can continue to produce wealth with continuous demand. 
 
Also in Albion Online and Eve Online. ,industries outside the safe zone have bonuses, which drive you to want to build and defend those unsafe zones.
 
Also both games, have pvp introductory mechanics in the safe zone like FW, militia, and wars, and pve content, to intruce people in fight mechanics.
 
Is Albion Online a Copy of eve online?
Not really, just both games evolved to the same point, risk vs reward, and wheel of creation and destruction.
 
What I have exposed are just a couple of examples of the mechanics that work in other games, and that turn out to be all very similar, because they are the ones that work, in the same way that all the wheels in are round, it is not always necessary to invent a new wheel form. 
 
Yo have the necessary tools to have a game like this, I have seen that you have the talent, but they lack the courage. Stop thinking about how things will affect your game, or the players feelings, and look at how things have gone for the brave, Albion online and eve online were brave games.

The best point on 0.23 pach:

 
[IMPORTANT] Elements now have limited restoration attempts using scrap before being permanently broken and requiring a new element to be replaced with.
 
Most elements can be restored 3 times.
Item and fuel containers can be restored 5 times.
Core Units can no longer be restored using scrap at all.
 
It was such a good aspect, that our corporation created an internal market to be able to offer spare parts, each one of the members specialized in the production of a series of spare parts, and we created an area of stores with dispensers, after reversing this patch for the pressure of the players, that industry was no longer necessary because no one needed spare parts anymore, the stores stopped making sense and the market was dead. and let's be honest, the problem is not lag or bugs, the problem is that there is a part of players, who do not want to suffer any penalty for their mistakes, and who are only interested in seeing their wealth grow.
 
The tools are in the devs hands.
 

Original ideas, are not alwais good ideas , DU have unique mechanics never seen before, but alot times is better to copy existing ideas.
 
The video game industry has advanced following patterns that worked, and it is not by chance, let's say for example PvP games like Albion Online, or eve online, they are games that when you dead, part of the equipment or pieces of the ship are destroyed, it is not an arbitrary decision, it is simply a decision based on the need for wealth to disappear from the game, so that other people who do not participate in pvp can continue to produce wealth with continuous demand. 
 
Also in Albion Online and Eve Online. ,industries outside the safe zone have bonuses, which drive you to want to build and defend those unsafe zones.
 
Also both games, have pvp introductory mechanics in the safe zone like FW, militia, and wars, and pve content, to intruce people in fight mechanics.
 
Is Albion Online a Copy of eve online?
Not really, just both games evolved to the same point, risk vs reward, and wheel of creation and destruction.
 
What I have exposed are just a couple of examples of the mechanics that work in other games, and that turn out to be all very similar, because they are the ones that work, in the same way that all the wheels in are round, it is not always necessary to invent a new wheel form. 
 
Yo have the necessary tools to have a game like this, I have seen that you have the talent, but they lack the courage. Stop thinking about how things will affect your game, or the players feelings, and look at how things have gone for the brave, Albion online and eve online were brave games.

The best point on 0.23 pach:

 
[IMPORTANT] Elements now have limited restoration attempts using scrap before being permanently broken and requiring a new element to be replaced with.
 
Most elements can be restored 3 times.
Item and fuel containers can be restored 5 times.
Core Units can no longer be restored using scrap at all.
 
It was such a good aspect, that our corporation created an internal market to be able to offer spare parts, each one of the members specialized in the production of a series of spare parts, and we created an area of stores with dispensers, after reversing this patch for the pressure of the players, that industry was no longer necessary because no one needed spare parts anymore, the stores stopped making sense and the market was dead. and let's be honest, the problem is not lag or bugs, the problem is that there is a part of players, who do not want to suffer any penalty for their mistakes, and who are only interested in seeing their wealth grow.
 
The tools are in the devs hands.
 

Thank you for the long awaited information. At the moment, I would like to see a decision very quickly, as this current state of affairs is hugely damaging to ambitions and causing resentment in the community. It's just not fun to log in and build something great under these conditions.

Hey everyone!
 
We wanted to let everyone know that the internal discussions are still ongoing. We have been reading your feedback (all of it - really!), and we wanted to express our sincere thanks to everyone for joining in the discussion.
 
We have also been gathering your questions (please continue asking them if they haven't already been asked in this thread) and we'll do our best to have some answers for you as soon as we can.
 
Thanks again, we really do appreciate all of the feedback. ❤️

One year subscription cost 120€, 180€ for 3 years sems not a expensive contribution.

Unfortunately for me, I am reliving the situation experienced in another Sand Box MMO, Life is Feudal, the patterns of what happened are being repeated, wipes, players who wanted to keep their possessions in the wipes, players who wanted a more pvp environment, players who said that builders were the essence of the game... the resolution was as follows:
 
1-Launch of a unified server with many pvp
restrictions "turned out to be a bore and the game was continually losing users"
 
2-Wipe and launch of 2 servers one without PVP and one with PvP "the PVE server had hardly any population and for some reason the PVE players preferred to play in the PVP, but continually complaining"
 
3-Wipe, elimination of the PVE server and creation of a much bigger PVE/PVP server. "The PVE zone was used in practice by PVP players as a war factory, distorting the PVP zone, game become a big arena"
 
4-Closing of the game due to lack of players who paid a fee "They wanted to make everyone happy, when in reality you have to have a clear project, if your game has a small gameplay loop, and destruction is required so that the game loop does not end, you have to accept that some people are not going to be happy of losing his things, but the game will work"
 
All MMOs survive why wipe, people name wipe, EXPANSIONS, and accept this, but in sand boxes, people is so stick to his "hard work"
 
try for a moment, imagine that a world of warcraft player was opposed to an expansion, because the armor he uses will be obsolete and he will waste his time investment in getting it
 
In games where there is actually a cycle of destruction, these wipes are called world wars, as in the case of EVE Online, where it is the players who reset the economy by destroying large amounts of resources.

In my opinion the two server strategy is more of a temporary fix. Even if NQ can justify the added costs of running a legacy server, most new players would be drawn to the main/popular one. With the population disparity, at some point those added costs and the maintenance overhead would prompt the need for a server merge and we would be in the exact same situation.

Sorry but non exist PVE in dual universe.
We have this loop:
 
gathering>industry>build>PvP 
 
some people avoid the last steep of the loop, but is the only loop we have.

I think NQ should quickly sort this out , GO or NO GO... announce asap.  Everyday I login to the game and ask my self, maybe things I am doing just being wiped..  Should I continue building my new base after relocation?  should I just sell everything ? .. damn make it quick NQ